"INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes."

Because "probable cause" is at the police's discretion, the Indiana Supreme Court made the right ruling. The determination of "lawful" and "unlawful" police entry is not up to the whims of the homeowner. Police abuses can still be dealt with through the court system, although this is admittedly difficult. Bottom line, as long as we entrust other humans with a monopoly on violence, individuals cannot use their own discretion to check that power.

Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp

At 5/15/2011 11:42:46 AM, Steelerman6794 wrote:Because "probable cause" is at the police's discretion, the Indiana Supreme Court made the right ruling. The determination of "lawful" and "unlawful" police entry is not up to the whims of the homeowner. Police abuses can still be dealt with through the court system, although this is admittedly difficult. Bottom line, as long as we entrust other humans with a monopoly on violence, individuals cannot use their own discretion to check that power.

Police officers were given the right "to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all." We should have a right to resist unwarranted rape of privacy. If they have probable cause, they can go get a warrant. Allowing the police officer the power to arbitrarily infiltrate person and property overturns whatever functional protection we get from monopolizing violence.

Police officers were given the right "to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all." We should have a right to resist unwarranted rape of privacy.

The point is that if you allow people to resist, they can resist and always claim that they thought it was unlawful. Looking at it from the point of view of the innocent it seems literally insane of course, but look at it from the point of view of what happens to the guilty if they are allowed to resist.

"We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

The purpose is to protect the people who are actually innocent from getting hurt as well as the officers. If there is a violation of civil rights, if there is unwarranted property damage, then that is what the courts are for.

--The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.--

That is extremely common in such complaints, if the husband is abusing the wife is he going to let them in? The wife could actually be seriously hurt, you have to consider all scenario's.

"We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest."

The purpose is to protect the people who are actually innocent from getting hurt as well as the officers. If there is a violation of civil rights, if there is unwarranted property damage, then that is what the courts are for.

--The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment.

When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him.--

That is extremely common in such complaints, if the husband is abusing the wife is he going to let them in? The wife could actually be seriously hurt, you have to consider all scenario's.

"In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally -- that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,"

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

I tend to side with Steelerman, in the sense that I'm fatigued from tryin to split hairs on matters of police authority when the police are obvously entrusted with that authority and the discretion that must come with it. I agree emotionally with WJM (I'm not happy to see my rights slowly eroded away), but he supports police as an institution and in my eyes is making excuses for that support (as opposed to throwing in the towel and finally denouncing them). If he is right, then we are doomed to a perpetual struggle between the interests of police and citizens, where each choice we make either puts officers in awkward positions (in terms of safety and efficacy) or else gives them, and by extension the worst amongst them, the ability to abuse us. As someone who has been abused by police before, I feel that many people do not take seriously what really happens when officers are given jurisdiction over our civil rights.

Excellent posts up until now, btw. Let's hope the dialogue remains strong for many pages to come.

the key term being used is "probable cause".Exigent circumstance means they can do what they need to do without a warrant.If you set the precedent that there need not even be exigent circumstances then what protection is there for the individual?

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

If you set the precedent that there need not even be exigent circumstances then what protection is there for the individual?

The law obviously, if what they did is unjustified then civil and even criminal charges can be pressed. Civil is almost always better as the BoP is less and the lawyers can work for part of the damages/settlement.

At 5/15/2011 9:49:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:the key term being used is "probable cause".Exigent circumstance means they can do what they need to do without a warrant.If you set the precedent that there need not even be exigent circumstances then what protection is there for the individual?

The real question is: how much discretion does the citizen retain over the police? If the police are given total discretion, then they can operate efficiently and safely by simply brushing aside citizens when they interfere. Drakonian as it is, once we give even the slightest discretion back to the citizen, we are now essentially justifying resisting arrest. If the citizen has even the slightest say, then they are going to stretch that .0001% out in almost every circumstance. This is why I say that law is a game... imagine if players in the NFL were given a slight discretion over the referees. Would they ever fail to relentlessly exercise it to their own team's advantage? In fact, they are essentially granted a minute amount of discretion and this is why most plays end in some sort of deceit - by outstretching their arms after being tackled, by pointing to other players who they want to be called foul, and by waving their hands after a close catch to signify the other team didn't in fact make that catch. If somehow referees could be technologically separated from the gestures of players after the whistle is blown, then players would cease this dishonest behavior at once (perhaps a device inserted into the football could automate the results of the play and render players' and coaches' rhetoric useless. But the slight chance that this behavior will produce results dictates that players must do everything in their power to use this to their advantage . If they didn't try to fool the refs after the play, then their coaches would likely criticize them. The same goes for citizens breaking the law; they would have to use everything in their power to achieve their goal of not being caught, and that would mean resisting arrest simply on the grounds that there is no pressing need or legal authority for police to arrest them. Police by definition, just as referees, politicians, supervisors, parents, deities, and judges by definition cannot operate without total discretion. That is the nature of authority.

If you set the precedent that there need not even be exigent circumstances then what protection is there for the individual?

The law obviously, if what they did is unjustified then civil and even criminal charges can be pressed.

Crucial operator: "can"

Civil is almost always better as the BoP is less and the lawyers can work for part of the damages/settlement.

Aside from the inefficiency and inequity of having to spend money on lawyers, who are just pigs with ties, there is a problem with our ability to truthfully exercise our rights in this fashion. Cops are experts in their fields, and trying to compete with them at their own game is not usually going to be fruitful unless they create so much damage and are so reckless that it becomes painfully obvious. Otherwise there is a laundry-list of reasons of how police have an incredible advantage over the citizen in these matters, and until you are actually in a situation where you battle them, you probably aren't going to know what I'm talking about. Have you ever battled a police officer in court in front of a judge? It's like trying to beat the Packers at Lambeau Field. Major offenses tend to even out with lawyers getting involved, but as the severity of the infraction decreases, so too does your ability to fully exercise professional protection of your rights. This is why black people in the ghetto complain so much about police injustice: every-day interactions are dominated by the police. And the minute your frustrations with them escalate (despite whether or not they are provoking you into being frustrated) they are gonna reach for that weapon and put you back in your place. They call them pigs for a reason, you know... it's not just a colorful term.

So if I was just sitting in my home minding my own business, the cops busted down my door, startled me, I grab the gun from my desk drawer and the cops shot me. Would this case not set the precedent that the cops were at no fault?Despite there being no warrant, no consent and no exigent cause?

"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

It is easy to make a bunch of assertions Rob, I know police officers, I know lawyers, one of my best friends is one (lawyer). Finding a lawyer to represent you on a civil matter is like finding an insurance salesman, it is not difficult. And yes, I have dealt with the police on numerous occasions on both sides of the law. And I understand what they have to deal with and act accordingly. I know I am no threat to them, they do not. Calling them all pigs is like calling all women sluts, it only harms the speaker.

If you set the precedent that there need not even be exigent circumstances then what protection is there for the individual?

The law obviously, if what they did is unjustified then civil and even criminal charges can be pressed. Civil is almost always better as the BoP is less and the lawyers can work for part of the damages/settlement.

Police officers have immunity from civil suits for this sort of thing, even if the search is illegal. To get past their immunity you need to convince 5 judges that what they were doing was not just misconduct but had absolutely nothing to do with law enforcement. Maybe if they rape your infant.... as long as they don't handcuff it first.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

Police officers have immunity from civil suits for this sort of thing ...

You don`t sue them

Then who do you sue? Where, pray tell, is the remedy? You just told me I can't shoot the police officer who has broken into my house without a warrant, presumably even if he is raping my wife or an infant. I also can't sue them later, they have immunity. Wat do?

and civil claims are not about who can win, they are about who wants to go to court.

The law is about who wins the case. Settlements are irrelevant.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

Erring on the side of caution, it's better not to resist the cops initially and then just sue the crap out of the department, unless of course it's more than a case of mistaken identity. Obviously if the cops are clearly trying to cause you harm, you have every right to defend yourself.

But practically speaking, not resisting will just make your case look better in the long run.

You phrased it as an unqualified absolute. Note I said presumably. The proper response is "Hells yeah" and let the dice fall where they may or "Hells no" and outline the difference in principle between violently resisting unlawful entry and violently resisting unlawful bodily entry.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

I don't see what else the police could have done, given the circumstances.

Domestic disputes are ugly in any circumstance, you are just as likely to try to protect the victim and then be attacked by them. I have friends that are EMT's, very good friends and even they can get attacked by the people they are trying to treat when they are just trying to keep the husband/wife separated. You really need to experience what they have to do through to judge them.

At 5/15/2011 11:22:41 AM, lewis20 wrote:Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

"INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes."

At 5/15/2011 11:22:41 AM, lewis20 wrote:Court: No right to resist illegal cop entry into home

"INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes."

At 5/16/2011 8:39:30 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:Erring on the side of caution, it's better not to resist the cops initially and then just sue the crap out of the department, unless of course it's more than a case of mistaken identity. Obviously if the cops are clearly trying to cause you harm, you have every right to defend yourself.

But practically speaking, not resisting will just make your case look better in the long run.

Yes, all the best legal advice always revolves around rolling over and showing your belly when you think your rights are being trampled on (lawyers will even go so far as to advise you to get their badge number inconspicuously, without making it obvious you are doing it). Works out pretty nicely in the middle and upper classes, just by virtue of the low incidence of actual confrontation with the police, but when you are bonified lower class its outrageously unfair.